Say what you mean

[BehindTheMask]

Let us assume all of my suppositions are true.

 

Suppose Steve has 3 children.

 

With this statement is, we cannot infer that Steve has exactly 3 children, because Steve can have exactly 4 children, while having 3 children.

 

Now, lets suppose that Steven is married to Shelly, Steven has 4 kids, and has always been faithful to Shelly.

 

Can we say that Shelly has exactly 4 children?

 

No, we cannot. Steven could have been remarried, and had 4 kids with his first wife. We cannot know for sure.

 

So...

 

Discuss how we should be more precise, in the terms of what language we communicate with any other person that is not our self.

 

Discuss how communications can be hazardous to people.

[HORUS]

wat

[Dismal Euphony]

Let us assume all of my suppositions are true.

 

Suppose Steve has 3 children.

 

With this statement is' date=' we cannot infer that Steve has exactly 3 children, because Steve can have exactly 4 children, while having 3 children.

 

Now, lets suppose that Steven is married to Shelly, Steven has 4 kids, and has always been faithful to Shelly.

 

Can we say that Shelly has exactly 4 children?

 

No, we cannot. Steven could have been remarried, and had 4 kids with his first wife. We cannot know for sure.

 

So...

 

Discuss how we should be more precise, in the terms of what language we communicate with any other person that is not our self.

 

Discuss how communications can be hazardous to people.

[/quote']

 

In these given situations, we simply cannot say exactly. We can, however, infer that this information is true. In such a situation, if it is to be known that Steve has four children, why wouldn't Steve simply state that he has four children?

[-Griffin]

Think of what the other person is going to interpret it as.

It can also relate to context.

 

If someone had just asked, "does anyone in the room have at least three children?"

The answer, "Steve has three children" could imply anything with a value over two, since it's clearly just answering the question.

 

If the question was, "how many children does Steve have?"

Then the answer, "Steve has three children" would be enough that most people understand that you mean exactly three.

[BehindTheMask]

Let us assume all of my suppositions are true.

 

Suppose Steve has 3 children.

 

With this statement is' date=' we cannot infer that Steve has exactly 3 children, because Steve can have exactly 4 children, while having 3 children.

 

Now, lets suppose that Steven is married to Shelly, Steven has 4 kids, and has always been faithful to Shelly.

 

Can we say that Shelly has exactly 4 children?

 

No, we cannot. Steven could have been remarried, and had 4 kids with his first wife. We cannot know for sure.

 

So...

 

Discuss how we should be more precise, in the terms of what language we communicate with any other person that is not our self.

 

Discuss how communications can be hazardous to people.

[/quote']

 

In these given situations, we simply cannot say exactly. We can, however, infer that this information is true. In such a situation, if it is to be known that Steve has four children, why wouldn't Steve simply state that he has four children?

 

And yet, you assume Steve is saying something.

 

Why do you assume?

[Brushfire]

It's called common sense. Or at least, common interpretation. There's really no point looking too logically at something like this, especially on a site like YCM.

[DeREVOLUTION]

Who's Steve?

[♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥]

So you're basically telling people to stop using figurative language?

 

Authors and other writers will hate you so much.

[DeREVOLUTION]

So you're basically telling people to stop using figurative language?

 

Authors and other writers will hate you so much.

 

Don't forget lawyers. ;D

 

[BehindTheMask]

It's called common sense. Or at least' date=' common interpretation. There's really no point looking too logically at something like this, especially on a site like YCM.

[/quote']

 

Except, there can be manipulation to common interpretation. This makes it less hard to twist words, so to so.

 

So you're basically telling people to stop using figurative language?

 

Authors and other writers will hate you so much.

 

I would like to discuss using more accurate language.

[OMGAKITTY]

If I said what I really meant, I'd get b& a lot more.

[-Berserker-]

Is the Steve of the first part the same than Steven?

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

There is only one thing you can assume, with good faith, that is true about this statement is that Steve has atleast 3 kids and that is all, in fact, your reasoning about the Shelly thing is false because if Shelly is married to Steve, the children he had before are now her's by law (or atleast should be); however, you are correct in saying that we cannot say she has exactly 4 children since you never said Shelly was always faithful.

 

OT: If someone says "Steve has 3 children" then it is assumed that they mean "exactly" 3 children seeing as it would be obserd to say anything else. If some asked "who here has atleast 3 children" people will respond "Steve has atleast 3, he has 4" or something along those lines. I could be compeletly shot down in my logic, but "no guts, no glory" right?

 

Edit: People do need to clarify more when they speak, however, your example is not the best for this situation.

[Dark Mousy]

It's the old "post hoc ergo ad hoc fallacy"... god damn it...

[Nishi-chan]

Who's Steve?

Major lol

[OMGAKITTY]

Who's Steve?

Major lol

 

Steve told me that the Hip-hop-a-potamus is a large water dwelling mammal. That Steve...

[BehindTheMask]

There is only one thing you can assume' date=' with good faith, that is true about this statement is that Steve has atleast 3 kids and that is all, in fact, your reasoning about the Shelly thing is false because if Shelly is married to Steve, the children he had before are now her's by law (or atleast should be); however, you are correct in saying that we cannot say she has exactly 4 children since you never said Shelly was always faithful.

 

OT: If someone says "Steve has 3 children" then it is assumed that they mean "exactly" 3 children seeing as it would be obserd to say anything else. If some asked "who here has atleast 3 children" people will respond "Steve has atleast 3, he has 4" or something along those lines. I could be compeletly shot down in my logic, but "no guts, no glory" right?

 

Edit: People do need to clarify more when they speak, however, your example is not the best for this situation.

[/quote']

 

Legally, but not familial...which brings me to one of my points...If everyone were to write using common assumptions, then the law would be greatly manipulated. Using precise language allows us to prevent confusions.

 

Also, this is like the same thing with Genies...that you have to be specific, or they can use that against you.

 

It's the old "post hoc ergo ad hoc fallacy"... god damn it...

 

Except its not.

 

My examples used them, but this was to get people to understand my position.

[Dark Mousy]

I hate logical fallacies... it's an excuse for my economics teacher to fail me.

 

XD. I get it though.

[Dismal Euphony]

Who's Steve?

Major lol

 

Steve told me that the Hip-hop-a-potamus is a large water dwelling mammal. That Steve...

 

They call me the Hiphopopotamus.

Flows that glow like phosphorous,

Poppin' off the top of this esophagus,

Rockin' this metropolis.

I'm not a large water-dwelling mammal.

Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?

Did Steve tell you that, perchance?

Steve.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Topic is based on semantics, scenario's based on semantics of the word "have". Like, having 3 children with you in your current close family, while having 4 children total, as in having them born, as in "Let's have kids", as in "Let's have intercourse, leading to kids".

 

Now that that's done with, I believe that making yourself clear is important as to give your readers as little margin for misunderstanding as you can, leading to BAWrings, unless that was your intention in the first place, in which case oh you silly.

 

4 kids

 

4 kids [again]

 

AM I DETECTING A CLEVERLY HIDDEN REFERENCE?

 

Who's Steve?

Major lol

 

Steve told me that the Hip-hop-a-potamus is a large water dwelling mammal. That Steve...

 

They call me the Hiphopopotamus.

Flows that glow like phosphorous' date='

Poppin' off the top of this esophagus,

Rockin' this metropolis.

I'm not a large water-dwelling mammal.

Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?

Did Steve tell you that, perchance?

Steve.

[/quote']

 

[spoiler=Serious rebuttal]

Aww yeah

That`s right baby.

Girl, tonight we`re gonna make love. You know how I know, baby? `Cause it`s Wednesday. And Wednesday night is the night that we make love. Tuesday night`s the night that we go and visit your mother, but Wednesday night is the night that we make love. `Cause everything is just right conditions are perfect. There`s nothing good on TV. Conditions are perfect. You lean in close and say something sexy like, "I might go to bed I`ve got work in the morning." I know what you`re trying to say baby. You`re trying to say, "Oh, yeah. It`s business time. It`s business time."

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

That`s what you`re trying to say you`re trying to say let`s get down to business it`s business time.

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

Next thing you know we`re in the bathroom brushing our teeth. That`s all part of it, that`s foreplay. Then you go sort out the recycling. That`s not part of it but it`s still very important. Then we`re in the bedroom. You`re wearing that ugly old baggy t-shirt from that team building exercise you did for your old work. And it`s never looked better on you.

 

Oh, team building exercise `99.

 

Oh, you don`t know what you`re doing to me.

I remove my jeans but trip over them `cause I still got my shoes on. But I turn it into a sexy dance.

Next thing you know I`m down to just my socks and you know when I`m down to just my socks what time it is�it`s time for business. It`s business time.

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

You know when I`m down to just my socks it`s time for business that`s why they call it business socks.

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

Oh.

Ooh, makin` love.

Makin` love for two.

Makin` love for two minutes.

When it`s with me you only need two minutes, `cause I`m so intense. Two minutes in heaven is better than one minute in heaven. You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

Business hours are over. Right, right.

 

It`s business.

It`s business time.

 

[Polycarp]

Let us assume all of my suppositions are true.

 

Suppose Steve has 3 children.

 

With this statement is' date=' we cannot infer that Steve has exactly 3 children, because Steve can have exactly 4 children, while having 3 children.

 

Now, lets suppose that Steven is married to Shelly, Steven has 4 kids, and has always been faithful to Shelly.

 

Can we say that Shelly has exactly 4 children?

 

No, we cannot. Steven could have been remarried, and had 4 kids with his first wife. We cannot know for sure.

 

So...

 

Discuss how we should be more precise, in the terms of what language we communicate with any other person that is not our self.

 

Discuss how communications can be hazardous to people.

[/quote']

 

In these given situations, we simply cannot say exactly. We can, however, infer that this information is true. In such a situation, if it is to be known that Steve has four children, why wouldn't Steve simply state that he has four children?

 

Assume one is dead =P

 

Who's Steve?

Major lol

 

Steve told me that the Hip-hop-a-potamus is a large water dwelling mammal. That Steve...

 

XD YOU ARE WIN!!

[BehindTheMask]

Topic is based on semantics' date=' scenario's based on semantics of the word "have". Like, having 3 children [b']with you in your current close family[/b], while having 4 children total, as in having them born, as in "Let's have kids", as in "Let's have intercourse, leading to kids".

 

Now that that's done with, I believe that making yourself clear is important as to give your readers as little margin for misunderstanding as you can, leading to BAWrings, unless that was your intention in the first place, in which case oh you silly.

 

I will say this again...

 

If everyone were to write using common assumptions, then the law would be greatly manipulated. Using precise language allows us to prevent confusions.

 

So, discuss the implications of not being precise.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

So' date=' discuss the implications of not being precise.

[/quote']

 

You mean like tons of loop holes in the law? Because they are still there, like the contractors that are paid to do a job but do a crappy one and then play it just right so that they can then steal the house LEGALLY from out the family's nose and then flip it to make hundreds of thousands? While putting the family on the street?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Topic is based on semantics' date=' scenario's based on semantics of the word "have". Like, having 3 children [b']with you in your current close family[/b], while having 4 children total, as in having them born, as in "Let's have kids", as in "Let's have intercourse, leading to kids".

 

Now that that's done with, I believe that making yourself clear is important as to give your readers as little margin for misunderstanding as you can, leading to BAWrings, unless that was your intention in the first place, in which case oh you silly.

 

I will say this again...

 

If everyone were to write using common assumptions, then the law would be greatly manipulated. Using precise language allows us to prevent confusions.

 

So, discuss the implications of not being precise.

 

Not much to discuss for such a specific topic other than it causing more confusion and frustration than one would want. Or that one would ideally want anyway. xD

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Commonly made assumptions eliminate the need for such precision. If you're trying to apply this to laws the such, more important things like that are elaborated as far as they can be elaborated upon.